/m/otp

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot. In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.
"Are you able to read that at all?" defense attorney Don West asked.
Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive. . . Jeantel, 19, was unable to read any of the letter save for her name.

How is that a big deal? Is the fact that she's illiterate and possibly dictated the letter to someone else a big gotcha moment or something? I can see where stupid people would think so, but does this actually contradict her statement, or is it just the defense stupid-shaming the witness for fun?

I can see where stupid people would think so, but does this actually contradict her statement,

Which statement? The one where she revealed that the only person who made racial comments that night was Trayvon? Thus making his attack of Zimmermann (*) a racial hate crime? Or were you thinking of another one?

(*) Assuming the evidence heads where it's appeared for some time it's heading.

How is that a big deal? Is the fact that she's illiterate and possibly dictated the letter to someone else a big gotcha moment or something? I can see where stupid people would think so, but does this actually contradict her statement, or is it just the defense stupid-shaming the witness for fun?

The witness has already been shown to have lied under oath several times, and the version of events in the letter differs from her testimony. That her version of events is an ever-changing account provided by others severely undercuts her credibility.

First answer my questions without tangents that serve no purpose other than to bolster your ideological mindset. If you refuse to take your opposition seriously, but can only engage in anemic ad hominem, don't expect for it to take you seriously.

So, what you are saying is that you do *not* have any evidence to back up your assertions that members of Tea Party organizations are more likely to commit tax fraud than those in other groups?

Too bad. I was looking forward to the interesting data and/or study that I believed you had in order to make such a statement. Unfortunately, it just turns out that you are a liar.

c'mon. it's to give the appearance that the letter was ginned together by someone else and that the contents of the letter are fraudulent

To stupid people, perhaps. What it actually means is the letter was not written by her. Was that the statement; "I wrote this letter?" Or was the statement "this letter is what I heard on the phone?" Because if it's the latter, this is defense lawyers doing their shame and blame shell game. They're lawyers. It's their job to lie. But smart people don't have to fall for it.

c'mon. it's to give the appearance that the letter was ginned together by someone else and that the contents of the letter are fraudulent

I'm sure Sam understands perfectly. But you have to remember this is a guy that also has the legal theory that if you think someone's following you, you have every legal right to beat the crap out of them.

But you have to remember this is a guy that also has the legal theory that if you think someone's following you, you have every legal right to beat the crap out of them.

It is well established that you have a difficult time reading what I write and actually comprehending what it means, rather than projecting your flame-war preferences onto what you think it probably ought to mean, so it's not surprising that I have to correct your error here. Again.

I made no such claim to "legal right." In point of fact I took great pains during that discussion to establish clearly and precisely that I was not making legal arguments, as such arguments are beneath me. You might consider paying attention some time. I mean, it's been decades. It's the least you could do at some point.

So, what you are saying is that you do *not* have any evidence to back up your assertions that members of Tea Party organizations are more likely to commit tax fraud than those in other groups?

Too bad. I was looking forward to the interesting data and/or study that I believed you had in order to make such a statement. Unfortunately, it just turns out that you are a liar.

Is this how you engage in conversation, dialogue, and debate in other areas of your life? You know, if you actually get down to some specifics, like my questions attempted to induce you to do so, you might find that there some points we agree on. Instead, you insist on just posturing in a silly juvenile doctrinaire fashion. As you and most of your ilk seem to only do--which makes actual discussion impossible.

Is this how you engage in conversation, dialogue, and debate in other areas of your life? You know, if you actually get down to some specifics, like my questions attempted to induce you to do so, you might find that there some points we agree on. Instead, you insist on just posturing in a silly juvenile doctrinaire fashion. As you and most of your ilk seem to only do--which makes actual discussion impossible.

Generally speaking, if someone asserts that government can treat X party unfairly because of Y fact, they have at least some miniscule shred of evidence to back up their assertion about the existence of Y fact. You did not, have not, and are offended by the suggestion that you would back up an argument with facts.

So, did you lie about having the facts, just did not have the capacity to realize you did not have the facts, or do you have the facts and simply refuse to present them? Liar, idiot, or ####### - in the spirit of generosity, I'll let you pick the conclusion.

You made an assertion that government should treat Tea Party groups like cops treat a high-crime area. Put up or shut up time. Let's see the evidence.

. . . I took great pains during that discussion to establish clearly and precisely that I was not making legal arguments, as such arguments are beneath me.

Sam has made it clear that he feels entitled to take the law into his own hands and isn't constrained by such legalisms as evidence and trials. Lynch Mob Sam may be surprised to find out that he can't play Internet Tough Guy in real life.

Generally speaking, if someone asserts that government can treat X party unfairly

Who asserted that government can treat someone unfairly?

they have at least some miniscule shred of evidence to back up their assertion about the existence of Y fact. You did not, have not, and are offended by the suggestion that you would back up an argument with facts.

That's not true. I raised questions, which you have not deigned to answer, instead engaging in smoke and mirrors, and raised analogous situations and asked for your comment and appraisal, which you have ignored.

So, did you lie about having the facts, just did not have the capacity to realize you did not have the facts, or do you have the facts and simply refuse to present them? Liar, idiot, or ####### - in the spirit of generosity, I'll let you pick the conclusion.

That's clown talk, bro

A) Is the United States government constitutionally empowered to tax and collect taxes?

B) Has that government established an agency to do that?

C) Does that agency proceed according to statutory mandates and administrative law regulations and procedures?

Now, is it your position that the IRS can't monitor to see if the law is being followed?

If so, how do they do that? If an individual or organization claims it doesn't have to pay taxes or won't pay taxes, can the IRS look into that? Thus, the questions and hypotheticals I put to you. (I can repeat them if you like?)

How is the government supposed to function? How is it to go about its business in the situations I put to you?

This is about cause and effect? Do you believe in cause and effect? Do you think government should take into account probabilities?

Can it check for the breaking of the polygamy laws by looking at groups who maintain their right to engage in polygamy? Or NAMBLA? Or groups who advocate the violent overthrow of government--or who say they are at war with the US? Or must the government just wait for them to actually commit a violent act before they even investigate their activities? Those are questions that someone who is not so doctrinaire that they aren't incapable of actually contemplating a real world as it really operates would feel an obligation to address.

c'mon. it's to give the appearance that the letter was ginned together by someone else and that the contents of the letter are fraudulent

She can't read or write she allegedly dictated it to a friend.
Personally I think the only [legally] interesting thing about the letter is whether it is consistent with or contradicts other accounts she's given.

With regard to lies she admitted lying about why she skipped Martin's funeral, and to "cleaning up" Martin's language because Martin's mother was in the room.

She now says that Martin's last words were "get off get off me" or something like that, but she's never said that before apparently , and her claim “I didn't think it was important,” and “They never asked me. They never asked me what happened about fight or nothing.” seems kind of odd...

She can't read or write she allegedly dictated it to a friend.
Personally I think the only [legally] interesting thing about the letter is whether it is consistent with or contradicts other accounts she's given.

That would be an unbiased reading of those facts, yes. We know His High Holy Clappiness (nor Huggy Bear) is not interested in that at all.

Rachel Jeantel is the poster girl for what's wrong with big-city public schools. Jeantel apparently graduated from Norland High School without being able to read or write, but at least she has high self-esteem!

Rachel Jeantel is the poster girl for what's wrong with big-city public schools. Jeantel apparently graduated from Norland High School without being able to read or write, but at least she has high self-esteem!

It's not the fault of the schools. It's the fault of the broader community -- the same community that didn't adequately acculturate Trayvon to not act violently -- and Jeantel herself.

Tell us how you really feel. It's important to let your emotions out, babydoll.

But their case is indeed garbage. Do you not see that? It was politically motivated and brought for racial and lynch mob purposes. The prosecution lacks the evidence needed to prove each and every element BARD. It's telling that in the normal chain of events prosecutors declined to charge Zimmerman, and only after the specially interested special prosecutor got involved did we suddenly go from no charges to murder charges.

Corey by her own words and deeds was unfit to make the decision here, saying as she did that she was here to "do justice for Trayvon" (no; that's not how our system works or what her role is), and then lying to the judge in order to secure the probable cause warrant.

Former New England Patriots star Aaron Hernandez is being investigated for possible involvement in a drive-by shooting that left two men dead in Boston last year, ABC News has learned.

I'll bet Lloyd threatened to rat out Hernandez on these earlier murders and Hernandez decided to off him because dead men tell no tales. This horrible incident is starting to make more and more sense now.

Now, is it your position that the IRS can't monitor to see if the law is being followed?

Absolutely. But it must be done in an equitable manner. It was not. If you law enforcement is going to do heightened scrutiny based on a pattern, the pattern has to actually exist. You've presented not a single shred of evidence that the pattern existed and neither has the IRS.

Rachel Jeantel is the poster girl for what's wrong with big-city public schools. Jeantel apparently graduated from Norland High School without being able to read or write, but at least she has high self-esteem!

Let's be fair, we don't KNOW that she has high self-esteem. She might be consumed with self-loathing!

It's not the fault of the schools. It's the fault of the broader community -- the same community that didn't adequately acculturate Trayvon to not act violently -- and Jeantel herself.

Potential wasted.

If only we'd spent more money on the schools and given every child an iPad; then everyone would finally be above average.

It's not the fault of the schools. It's the fault of the broader community ...

I agree the communities are partly at fault, but it doesn't absolve the schools. Public schools still have a de facto monopoly on educating kids from middle- and lower-income homes, so there's no reason for standards to have been dumbed down so low. It's not like parents are taking their kids to private schools where the standards are even lower.

Rachel Jeantel is the poster girl for what's wrong with big-city public schools. Jeantel apparently graduated from Norland High School without being able to read or write, but at least she has high self-esteem

It's not the fault of the teachers. How could they have known that they were giving her passing grades despite the fact that she couldn't read or write?

In a letter to Congress that was released on Thursday, the inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, acknowledged that the term "Progressives" appeared on a list of terms used by IRS screeners from to look for applicants with potential problems that would merit close scrutiny. But he said there was no evidence the IRS set aside progressive groups' applications because they appeared on that list, which was aimed at finding groups that may have engaged in political activity – which could affect whether they were granted tax-exempt status.

So essentially, Issa directed the IG to ignore something that the IG has no evidence that happened. Seems logical. If I'm the attorney leading the Aaron Hernandez prosecution, I'd probably instruct the police to ignore the possibility that Odin Lloyd was murdered by Sandor Clegane.

Boehner has let himself be browbeaten by the tea party caucus into asserting the Hastert Rule before allowing the immigration bill to come to a vote. This will keep the Christmas-in-July "border security" $3.2 billion boondogle for Halliburton et al from happening, as well as letting the House Republicans enjoy the well-earned consequences of killing the bill.

Obviously the full story about these IRS audits has yet to come out, which given Darrell Issa's history is not too surprising. From Spike's link:

Speaking to CNN on Tuesday, Issa said the IRS appeared to have been targeting Obama’s political opponents “perhaps not on his request” but “on his behalf.”

But new documents have revealed that liberal and progressive groups received similar treatment from the IRS. The “inappropriate criteria” used to single out tea party groups — so-called “Be On the Look Out” (BOLO) memos — also singled out progressive and “Occupy” groups.

“We did not review the use, disposition, purpose or content of the other BOLOs. That was outside the scope of our audit,” the Treasury inspector general spokesman told The Hill.

The BOLO memos stated tax exempt status for progressive groups “may not be appropriate” because they were engaged in “anti-Republican” political activity. On the other hand, the BOLO memos only directed IRS employees to send tea party applications to a particular group. IRS officials have said the tea party applications were “centralized” to insure they received consistent treatment. Exactly how the BOLO memos were used remains unclear.

The report identified 298 groups that were subjected to additional scrutiny, and identified 98 of those groups as either tea party, patriot or 9/12 groups. The remaining 202 groups were labelled as “other.” During congressional hearings, George was repeatedly asked if these 202 “other” groups included liberal organizations. He said he couldn’t “make that determination” based on the available evidence. However, several liberal groups received the same level of IRS scrutiny as tea party groups.

The omitted information has caused Democrats to question whether the audit was truthful.

“Failing to make this clear in these documents and at Congressional Hearings even when asked directly has been fully misleading,” Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI) wrote in a letter to George on Wednesday. “It has contributed to the distortion of this entire investigation, including use of innuendo and totally unsubstantiated assertions of White House involvement.”

The Associated Press on Wednesday confirmed that liberal and progressive groups were subjected the same treatment that conservative groups had complained about, including excessive questioning and extremely long waits. The liberal group Catholics United, for instance, waited seven years before receiving tax exempt status, far longer than any tea party group was forced to wait....

The report identified 298 groups that were subjected to additional scrutiny, and identified 98 of those groups as either tea party, patriot or 9/12 groups. The remaining 202 groups were labelled as “other.” During congressional hearings, George was repeatedly asked if these 202 “other” groups included liberal organizations. He said he couldn’t “make that determination” based on the available evidence. However, several liberal groups received the same level of IRS scrutiny as tea party groups.

Dan, aren't you in the least bit curious about the political makeup those "other" 202 groups? Why not just wait until that "available evidence" is filled out to give us a profile of those other 202 before rushing to conclusions? I'm not trying to be lawyerly, but it seems to me that George's statement is more than a little equivocal.

Dan, aren't you in the least bit curious about the political makeup those "other" 202 groups? Why not just wait until that "available evidence" is filled out to give us a profile of those other 202 before rushing to conclusions? I'm not trying to be lawyerly, but it seems to me that George's statement is more than a little equivocal.

I didn't rush to any conclusion. I haven't made any conclusion other than the IRS acted improperly, the extent of which to be hopefully determined in the investigation. The IRS *itself* admitted to acting improperly, so I see no reason why it's unreasonable at this point to believe that.

It's the liberals jumping to conclusions, hearing a report and declaring the investigation over and meaningless and putting up the Mission Accomplished banner. *That's* a conclusion.

The IRS *itself* admitted to acting improperly, so I see no reason why it's unreasonable at this point to believe that.

The IRS stage-managed its admission of wrongdoing, and yet some of the lefties here are persisting in their claim that there might have been no wrongdoing in the first place. It's kind of amazing to see.

It's the liberals jumping to conclusions, hearing a report and declaring the investigation over and meaningless and putting up the Mission Accomplished banner. *That's* a conclusion.

Not me. The scandal portion of the "investigation" is basically over. I have no problem with the thought the IRS did something bad, and think it should be fixed. However, in terms of an actual political scandal (Worse than Watergate!) it is a giant nothingbuger - so far and I expect it to continue being nothing.

When it turns into something real (from a national/political perspective) feel free to tell me what an idiot I am being (I am used to it), but right now it just doesn't look like much.

The IRS stage-managed their admission of wrongdoing, and yet some of the lefties here are persisting in their claim that there might have been no wrongdoing in the first place.

Most of the pushback is more the order of "this is not an Obama scandal" and this is not as big a deal as the GOP is trying to make it out to be. Anyone suggesting the IRS was perfectly OK in what they did is in a distinct minority.

But hey you'll always have Benghazi! And Acorn. You'll always have Acorn.

So essentially, Issa directed the IG to ignore something that the IG has no evidence that happened. Seems logical. If I'm the attorney leading the Aaron Hernandez prosecution, I'd probably instruct the police to ignore the possibility that Odin Lloyd was murdered by Sandor Clegane.

Granted, I haven't really been following this particular subthread closely, but I don't see how that is an appropriate analogy. The only real reasons to instruct investigators to ignore a possibility, are 1) you think it might be going on, but even if so is irrelevant, or 2) you think it might be going on, and don't want it found out.

You wouldn't instruct the police to not investigate Sandor Clegane, because you have no reason to believe they would in the first place. It would be completely pointless, and you would have to instruct them specifically with an infinite amount of other "possibilities".

A better analogy would be you instructing the police to not investigate other potential suspects, or to ignore witnesses, which might be able to exonerate Hernandez, or mitigate his involvement.

Most of the pushback is more the order of "this is not an Obama scandal" and this is not as big a deal as the GOP is trying to make it out to be.

Has anybody here ever said it was an Obama scandal, in that Obama had any personal involvement? I mean, I suppose it's possible, but there's no evidence that was the case and I don't recall anybody here making that claim. Barring a shocking revelation, the worst you can put on Obama is that he played the role of Henry II saying, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest (Tea Party)?"

I have no idea why the IRS scandal would require Obama's personal involvement to be a big deal though; that's a bizarre standard. Abu Ghraib was a pretty big deal during the Bush II years, despite Bush having no personal involvement.

Has anybody here ever said it was an Obama scandal, in that Obama had any personal involvement? I mean, I suppose it's possible, but there's no evidence that was the case and I don't recall anybody here making that claim.

Dan, aren't you in the least bit curious about the political makeup those "other" 202 groups? Why not just wait until that "available evidence" is filled out to give us a profile of those other 202 before rushing to conclusions? I'm not trying to be lawyerly, but it seems to me that George's statement is more than a little equivocal.

I didn't rush to any conclusion. I haven't made any conclusion other than the IRS acted improperly, the extent of which to be hopefully determined in the investigation.

That's exactly where I'm at.

The IRS *itself* admitted to acting improperly, so I see no reason why it's unreasonable at this point to believe that.

All I'm saying is that I'd like to know the political nature of those "other" 202 groups on the BOLO list before determining the full nature and extent of the scandal. Right now nobody here knows much of anything about those "others".

It's the liberals jumping to conclusions, hearing a report and declaring the investigation over and meaningless and putting up the Mission Accomplished banner. *That's* a conclusion.

I hope you're not saying that I'm jumping to any conclusions, other than my long-ago stated conclusion that the IRS shouldn't be disproportionately targeting groups for auditing or screening based on where they fall on the political spectrum, all things being equal.

I will say, however, that I'm extremely skeptical that Darrell Issa is capable of leading any truly impartial investigation, and I hope that the direction his hearings take is going to be closely monitored by a wide range of independent media organizations and other assorted outside groups.

Given the polling, it seems that as a consequence, House Republicans will no longer get the votes of people that self identify as Democrats.

Which to be fair would be worrisome to them considering that more people voted for Dem than Reps last congressional election, but the R's splendid job of post-2010 redistricting, means they don't actually have to worry about that until 2020...

Basically the white vote 59:39 (R:D) in 2012 was the same as in 1988 (60:40)
In 1988 that gave Bush I a landslide victory, in 2012 it gave Obama a comfortable victory.
So whites voted the same, what changed?
1: Black turnout was up (blacks have voted 9:1 Dem over R for 30+ years now, the increased turnout may be an Obama thing and evaporate in 2016- as it did in 2010)
2: Hispanics have gone from 3% of the electorate to 10, how they vote fluctuates from around 55:45 in favor of Dems to 71:27 in 2012, when they were just 3% of the electorate you could almost ignore that.
3: Asians have gone from less than 1% to roughly 3% of the voting electorate, they have also gone from voting heavily in favor of Rs to voting 73:26 in favor of Dems in 2012.

So how can Rs win in 2016/2020?
1: Get 66% of the white vote (Reagan did it) or
2: Get back up to 40& of the Hispanic vote (combined with black turnout dropping back to a more "normal" 10-11% rather than 13) or
3: Prevent blacks and Hispanics from voting :-)

I'm guessing that the Rs are gonna go for 1 & 3

I wouldn't worry too much about the black vote if I'm the Rs, the Dems have it locked up, but the turnout will decline in 2016 with Obama off the ballot.

That is only going to go up, just about 25% of all babies in the US in recent years are born to Hispanic mothers.
The Hispanic fertility rate is nearly double that of non-hispanic whites (it varies by group- Central Americans are VERY high, Cuban Americans? lower than non-white Hispanics)

Obviously fertility rates can change over time, but it seems extremely likely that Hispanics will compose some 15-20% of the electorate by 2030-2040.

The Asian vote, it'll increase, but not by much, and it's still reachable by the GOP.

That is only going to go up, just about 25% of all babies in the US in recent years are born to Hispanic mothers.
The Hispanic fertility rate is nearly double that of non-hispanic whites (it varies by group- Central Americans are VERY high, Cuban Americans? lower than non-white Hispanics)

Obviously fertility rates can change over time, but it seems extremely likely that Hispanics will compose some 15-20% of the electorate by 2030-2040.

True, but without the same kind of historical reasons preventing a smooth integration (fighting over immigration laws isn't the same thing as slavery), I expect the Hispanic vote to become all over the spectrum, in the way that Germans, Italians, and Irish all did.

And the IG just said that he was specifically asked not to look into whether it happened by Darrell Issa. The story arc is about Issa now, and stamping your feet isn't going to change that. But do carry on. Watching Issa get pwnt at every turn has been most schadenfreude-tastic.

Among others. Nearly a quarter of all Republicans believe their party is too extreme.. Please proceed.

Border security as a condition legalization polls very well. There's no reason to believe there's a group of hardcore Republican voters ready to punish their Republican congressmen for not advancing this particular legislation. You're wish-casting, like the people making the same exact argument about the gun control bills a few months ago, that were *way* more popular than the current immigration bill.

There may be reasons for a Republican that requires a national electorate to be very annoyed, but you haven't really stated anything substantive supporting the notion that House Republicans are going to face what you believe are justified consequences for not voting on this particular immigration reform bill.

True, but without the same kind of historical reasons preventing a smooth integration (fighting over immigration laws isn't the same thing as slavery), I expect the Hispanic vote to become all over the spectrum, in the way that Germans, Italians, and Irish all did.

What's missing is the 7% who voted for Anderson in 1980, and 14% who voted for Perot, historically they have been more likely to go for 3rd party candidates than Blacks have. But yes that's a lot of year to year fluctuation suggesting that they have not really "settled" down yet.

. . . more people voted for Dem than Reps last congressional election, but the R's splendid job of post-2010 redistricting, means they don't actually have to worry about that until 2020...

Uh, no. The Republicans won their House majority in 2010 without benefit of redistricting. Democrats lose seats because so much of their vote is concentrated in urban areas. Winnng those districts 80% - 20% doesn't offset all the districts they lose 55-45.

And the IG just said that he was specifically asked not to look into whether it happened by Darrell Issa. The story arc is about Issa now, and stamping your feet isn't going to change that. But do carry on. Watching Issa get pwnt at every turn has been most schadenfreude-tastic.

But he *did* look at the issue. Issa being loudmouthed and cherrypicking information and you being loudmouthed and cherrypicking information are clearly not mutually exclusive. I don't care about your petty D vs. R dick-measuring contests. If you want to play Letter Warrior, leave me out of it.

I am not sure why this is CW. Why would people who are now registered to vote be so parochial as to not bother based on race, right after seeing their participation in the process vindicated by advancing goals a majority of them subscribe to? If anything, I would argue that minority participation will continue to rise, based on the political power they have achieved through voting and the rather clear downside to the opposition winning a Presidency.

Priceless. The conservative party is about to reap the whirlwind whether you take your toys and go home or not.

I am not a Republican, nor have I voted for many Republicans, nor have I ever self-identified as a conservative. You don't have to be a Republican, vote for Republicans, or self-identify as a conservative to identify a stupid argument more full of wishcasting than signing Jeff Francoeur to a $100 million contract.

You can keep your dick on the table all you want, but all I'm gonna do is point and laugh at you as you turn red futilely demanding the person with the measuring tape show up.

Actually, you kind of remind me of a leftist Orly Taitz, who always seems positive that the next so-called groundbreaking argument about Obama's birth certificate would be the one that would cause the populace rise up and demand he be removed from office. The whirlwind's always just an election away.

Has anybody here ever said it was an Obama scandal, in that Obama had any personal involvement? I mean, I suppose it's possible, but there's no evidence that was the case and I don't recall anybody here making that claim.

Wasn't Clapper running this one up the ladder to the White House?

My consistent position has been that just as you can't allow a President to politicize the IRS, you can't allow IRS workers to take it on themselves to politicize their work. Contrary to some of the posts above, there are still questions about the large number of WH meetings by the former IRS Commissioner (there were even more by his staff). If you'll remember, the Commissioner could only suggest the WH Easter Egg Roll as a reason for his presence. Worth looking into, and to my knowledge, the investigation is ongoing.

Even if the WH played no direct role, the incessant WH efforts to demonize their opponents, especially Tea Party Groups, may have led others to respond to the "Who will rid me of these troublesome Tea Partiers" rhetoric. Let's just have a thorough investigation and let the chips fall as they may.

Self-defense is typically an affirmative defense, it has to be proved by the defense, not disproved by the prosecution (but it seems Florida does not follow that rule...)

Anyway, Florida seems to have two types of manslaughter that may potentially be applicable:

(1)?The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

and

(3)?A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)?Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)?In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Uh, no. The Republicans won their House majority in 2010 without benefit of redistricting.

Redistricting helped them keep/gain about 5-7 seats, so yes they would have won the House in 2012 without redistricting, but redistricting certainly didn't hurt, and in fact may allow them to keep the house even if they "lose" the popular vote by 3% (Which is where the RCP generic congressional average is now)

Because blacks had the highest voter participation rate of any ethnic/racial group in 2008 & 2012.

But saying this is true because it's true is a tautology - I might agree with the notion of off year elections causing a greater fluctuation among these groups, but I can't imagine them not continuing to vote now that significantly greater numbers have been involved in the process for two straight elections. The GOP was positive 2012 participation was going to be down - the whole unskewed polls thing banked on it - but in fact it stayed just as strong if not stronger. Maybe it is just optimism on my part, but I can't believe this was solely due to skin color of a candidate.